During President Obama’s first term, I represented members of Congress in challenging Obama’s unilateral intervention into the Libyan civil war without authorization of Congress. Our case was dismissed on standing grounds and, once again, an undeclared act of war went by without any opportunity of judicial review. Now, Obama is reportedly debating whether to intervene in yet another civil war — undeterred by the now superfluous constitutional limits on his war-making authority. Israel has also publicly stated that it is considering a preemptive strike on Syria and reserves the right to make such an attack if it feels threatened by events in that civil war. [Update: I discussed this issue as part of my column on the imperial presidency this morning on C-Span]
President Barack Obama said he has been struggling with the decision whether to enter into another war as the 22-month civil war in Syria drags on. Here is what he considers to be the operative question:
“In a situation like Syria, I have to ask: can we make a difference in that situation?”
That is a bit different from the question that the Framers wanted him to ask: “Do I have authority from Congress to engage in a war?” That question is now just a quaint concern for a president who has acquired unprecedented unchecked powers. Once again, the Democrats are silent because it is Obama not Bush who is speaking of war. It is the type of hypocrisy that is not just laughable. It is lethal.
You will notice however that, during all of this public discussion of whether Obama will intervene in yet another war, there is not a peep of protest from Congress that it is supposed to have the final say on whether we go to war. Democrats again, even on war powers, are conspicuously silent — preferring to support Obama as a person than the Constitution on principle.
Of course, now that war is a unilateral power, we will not have an opportunity to debate our participation in yet another war. There will be no debate over the continued loss of American lives in foreign wars like Iraq and Afghanistan. There will be no debate over our continued spending billions on wars that we desperately need to support basic social programs at home. This is precisely why the Framers wanted to force public votes. While polls show the American people have long opposed our continued expenditure of lives and treasure in Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama and Congress have continued our involvement. Indeed, our slow withdrawal is due not to our leaders seeking to draw down but increasingly hostile relationships with our “allies” who want us out of their respective countries. The disconnect with the American public is alarming. We have taken a balanced and well-reasoned system and turned it on its head. The result is precisely what the Framers anticipated: continued foreign wars carried out on a unilateral basis.
Source: Yahoo
“GUANTANAMO NAVY BASE, Cuba — Someone else besides the judge and security officer sitting inside the maximum-security court here can impose censorship on what the public can see and hear at the Sept. 11 trial, it was disclosed Monday.
The role of an outside censor became clear when the audio turned to white noise during a discussion of a motion about the CIA’s black sites.
Confusion ensued. A military escort advised reporters that the episode was a glitch, a technical error. A few minutes later, the public was once again allowed to listen into the proceedings and Army Col. James Pohl, the judge, made clear that neither he nor his security officer was responsible for the censorship episode.
“If some external body is turning the commission off based on their own views of what things ought to be, with no reasonable explanation,” the judge announced, “then we are going to have a little meeting about who turns that light on or off.”
His comments appeared to be aimed at the Pentagon prosecution team. Attorney Joanna Baltes, representing the Justice Department on secrecy matters in the case, advised the judge that she could explain what other forces have a hand in censoring the court proceedings. But not in open session.
The alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his four accused conspirators were sitting in court, listening to everything that was being said — from the part that the public was forbidden to hear to the judge’s demand for an explanation. Three of the defendants adorned their traditional white tunics with camouflage, an attire option they won from the judge to appear at trial as self-styled soldiers.
The strange censorship episode occurred as attorney David Nevin, defending Mohammed, was advising the judge that defense lawyers had wanted to argue a motion in court to preserve whatever remained of the CIA’s secret overseas prison network. Prosecutors had filed a classified response to the request, and the judge asked the two sides if they would let their motions speak for themselves. Nevin was explaining why not.
Defense lawyers argue the alleged 9/11 conspirators were tortured in the so-called “black sites,” and that the U.S. government has lost its moral authority to seek their execution. The CIA set up the sites during the Bush administration, reportedly in Poland, Romania, Thailand and elsewhere. President Barack Obama ordered them closed.
The lawyers want the judge to order the government to preserve what’s left of them, six years after Mohammed and his co-defendants were moved to Guantanamo for trial. This is a familiar role for Pohl, who was the judge in the 2004 trials of U.S. soldiers for detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib and declared the prison in Iraq a crime scene, forbidding its demolition.
Unclear so far in these hearings is whether the judge knows where the black-site prisons were and whether any of them remain. Although he has a special security clearance to hear the 9/11 case, the CIA has not yet released classified information to the court because the defense and prosecution are still haggling over a protective order.
But to court observer Phyllis Rodriguez, the judge appeared “furious” and “livid” when he realized that that outsiders had their finger on the censorship switch of his courtroom.
“It’s a “whoa moment’ for the court,” said Human Rights Watch observer Laura Pitter. “Even the judge doesn’t know that someone else has control over the censorship button?”
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/guantanamo-censorship-of-cia-black-site-testimony-carol-rosenberg-miami-herald-2013-1#ixzz2JNwaGr5m
If one is a lawyer practicing “employment law” one will discern the commingling of civil liberties and civil rights. If my client gets fired for being black and too high up the seniorty pole then it would fit into JT’s niche as a civil right– discrimination based on race. But if my client gets fired for advocating the right to assemble, to speak to the fellow inmates at the workplace, to wear a sign on the tee shirt at the work site that says Pay The Lobbyist, or Praise The Lord, then one is delving into the civil liberties niche–the right to speak, assemble, pray, organize politically, organize a labor movement, petition one’s government for redress of grievances.
In America, if one seeks to enforce any or all of the above, one might have to invoke portions of the United States Code enumerated as “civil rights” acts, particularly Title 42 of United States Code, Section 1983. When a “state actor” such as a cop, deprives me of a civil right, I can put the matter before a court.
There is no wall between civil liberties and civil rights, and often the twain shall meet. Mark Twain would agree with me because he was from Missouri and knows about such things.
Sorry AP. AY was just above and this ‘human’ has some obvious learning gaps 😉
Psychologically, repeating basic principles is one way we humans seem to learn. -DonS
DonS,
Agreed. And it’s good to make the “distinctions” clear, as you say. (AP here… sometimes confused with AY. “AP” was a poor choice on my part.)
AY, thanks for the column on civil liberties vs civil rights. I’m sure JT is well aware of the potency of all this (and certainly doesn’t need my help). Still, with his more general contact with the public at large, it provides a powerful gateway to keep explaining and refining the distinction for Joe public. IMO. Psychologically, repeating basic principles is one way we humans seem to learn.
Someone in the administration is not just considering censoring access to public proceedings, but actually doing so.
“Guantanamo Secret Censor Frustrates Judge In 9/11 Case”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/28/guantanamo-secret-censor_n_2568595.html?utm_hp_ref=politics
Doubleplus ungood.
That should be “Jonathan Turley on civil liberties vs. civil rights.
Jonathan Turley on the civil liberties vs. civil rights:
Obama and Civil Liberties: Talk of the Nation
Published 1, October 10, 2011
http://jonathanturley.org/2011/10/10/obama-and-civil-liberties-talk-of-the-nation/
On another note, I was asked by the editors to clarify the difference between civil liberties and civil rights. Here is the posting:
In Thursday’s Op-Ed pages, Jonathan Turley, a professor of law at George Washington University, wrote that President Obama may prove the most disastrous president in our history in terms of civil liberties. (Ironically, his article ran the same day Obama ordered the killing of Anwar Awlaki, a U.S.-born cleric linked to Al Qaeda, thus further proving Turley’s point.) While the response on our discussion board overwhelmingly agreed with Turley’s Op-Ed, there were a few readers who didn’t understand the difference between civil liberties and civil rights. See below for Turley’s reply.
–Alexandra Le Tellier
My column was on civil liberties, which are those basic rights and freedoms guaranteed under our Bill of Rights and the Constitution. While they do not change in the sense that they are fundamental rights, they have been “recognized” in a belated or evolving fashion by the courts. Civil liberties include those core rights we associate with freedom, such as free speech, privacy, due process. Civil rights generally refer to laws that protect us from unequal treatment or harassment based on such characteristics as race, gender, age, disability, religion/belief, sexual orientation and nationality.
Notably, Obama has been criticized on both fronts. While he recently moved against “don’t ask, don’t tell,” his administration has been in court making the same arguments as the George W. Bush administration in denying that discrimination based on sexual orientation should be treated the same as discrimination based on race, religion or gender. He remains undecided on same-sex marriage. These are viewed as civil rights matters.
The subject of my column is properly called civil liberties. At issue, for example, is the right of the president to unilaterally declare that citizens should be killed on sight because his administration deems them part of a terrorist organization.
I hope that helps a little.
–Jonathan Turley
(Who could explain the difference better than our host himself.)
“The evangelical Christians and the left are the 2 groups which have the most in common from a philosophical point of view”???
You used the wrong mushrooms in your omelet this morning, Bron. Those two groups have little in common starting at the word “evangelical”. Most progressives are secularists when it comes to government and are pro-civil rights for all including both women and homosexuals as well as people of all religious creeds all of which flies directly in the face of many if not most evangelical dogmas.
DonS,
I’m gonna copy write it…. But I imagine the church hierarchy would sue….
Don S, It is certainly overused and proved to be totally ineffective as a tool to convince people to vote for a third party.
Someone ought to bottle this “lesser of two evils” bs. They’d make a fortune.
Sure, like working for McGovern is being on the winning side.
HenMan,
In politics it’s destroy the opposition at all costs. If they don’t agree with you, they are wrong and evil. I’ve worked for the majority leader and know how this game works. It’s sad that some cant see the future harm being done by what’s being done at this very instance…… But, hey…. Some just like to be on the winning side…. Regardless of outcome….
Smom:
Who says libertarians would want the left as members of their party? The evangelical Christians and the left are the 2 groups which have the most in common from a philosophical point of view, the taliban doesnt necessarily have to be religious. many on the left are secular taliban and would be a perfect fit with the evangelical Christians.
I for one hope they never figure that out, it would be an unholy alliance.
DonS:
I dont think building a bridge that is necessary is pork. However building a bridge which serves 50 people and costs 250 million is pork.
Finding food in this country is not a problem, the statistics on obesity pretty much says it all.
bron ,What you stated is exactly the reason the libertarians and the left will never get together to form a third party. It is also the reason why the candidacy of Ron Paul attracted only a minute number of progressives.
“collectively say no ” . . . and let them eat, er, whatever they can scrounge from the dumpster? Or nothing. One man’s pork is another’s infrastructure repair.
=================================
re JT video:
FWIW, after viewing the JT CSPAN video last night, which was very impressive, I have a humble suggestion. It could be useful to develop very clear layman’s language to clarify the difference between ‘civil rights’ and ‘civil liberties’. Since this distinction is crucial in a number of ways, It needs to be crystal clear and accessible. Developing the language around the distinction could actually be an exercise to organize the underlying concepts.
henman:
what we need to do is collectively say no to pork, no to national health care, no to social security, no to politicians who want to spend and tax.
SwM.
Good that you offer links. But my point was poorly expressed. You can’t drum up much fear here at home over Syria’s possession of gas there (compared with the possible nukes that Saddam had or would have, which was sold to us..
Was that better? Hope so.